[Denver] Catholic school boots student with gay parents [AP]

[kelvinf]

Read scripture Sodom was destroyed because of this sin ,and the entire tribe of Benjamin was almost wiped out because of it

Read St Paul…read the Didache…it has always been a forbidden act

So what has that got to do with the innocent child?

 

[kelvinf]

That isn’t the point. I could try to explain it but the pastor himself does a better job. For instance, divorce is not something that people have parades about, it is considered a tragedy. If divorced parents were promoting parades to celebrate divorce and call for divorce ceremonies in the Church, there would be the same problem.

Understood!

 

[kelvinf]

Yes and no. Its “rooted out” in the sense that the priest would have a meeting with his bishop and told to end the activity and perhaps might spend some time on spiritual retreat or psychological counseling. But the priest will not be “rooted out” of the priesthood unless there’s a continuing problem.

But you are correct that simply having a homosexual orientation is not sinful and is not of particular interest to most diocese.

Okay let me spell it out. I am referring to those abusive priests who persistently abuse minors and get away with it. We all know the cases in Canada, the US and recently Ireland and Germany.

Why don’t they get singled and rooted out, and reported to the police?

 

[kelvinf]

Some of you are speculating that the lesbian parents seem to have an agenda. Well, you better be right with that assumption. IMO

I am personally more interested in the innocent child.
This decision also means that the child can never become a catholic right (if he/she decides to do so one day)?
I am asking this question because some have based their arguments on the fact that sHe will be learning one thing at school and seeing the exact opposite being practiced at home.
So if sHe decides to learn the catholic doctrine it wouldn’t be possible since the same argument would have to be made right?

 

[redrosetea]

So what has that got to do with the innocent child?

The first place a child is taught about God is the domestic church which is the home…It is incumbent on the parents to set an example of Christian living for their child

If you are openly flaunting scripture how can you do this? If you commit your child to living a Catholic lifestyle you must also support that lifestyle by your own actions

 

[redrosetea]

Some of you are speculating that the lesbian parents seem to have an agenda. Well, you better be right with that assumption. IMO

I am personally more interested in the innocent child.
This decision also means that the child can never become a catholic right (if he/she decides to do so one day)?
I am asking this question because some have based their arguments on the fact that sHe will be learning one thing at school and seeing the exact opposite being practiced at home.
So if sHe decides to learn the catholic doctrine it wouldn’t be possible since the same argument would have to be made right?

No, when they are old enough to make the choice and understand it, this would not stop them from becoming a Catholic…If the parents parted and lived as friends only ,there would be nothing wrong with allowing this child to be part of a Catholic school

It is because they parents are openly defying the church the church must say no

 

[eichenb2]

Some of you are speculating that the lesbian parents seem to have an agenda. Well, you better be right with that assumption. IMO

I am personally more interested in the innocent child.
This decision also means that the child can never become a catholic right (if he/she decides to do so one day)?
I am asking this question because some have based their arguments on the fact that sHe will be learning one thing at school and seeing the exact opposite being practiced at home.
So if sHe decides to learn the catholic doctrine it wouldn’t be possible since the same argument would have to be made right?

How comfortable do you this the mother and her friend will be with the Church’s teaching on sexuality? Do you think they might attempt to sue the school for hate speech? Do you think these logical ramifications are a possible reason for the specualtion concerning the mother (and her female friends’) intentions. As for me, I was born in the day…but NOT Yesterday.

 

[AnotherVoice]

Actually, I have to disagree with the dioceses and the parish based upon what they wrote. They state that they don’t want to confuse the child when sexual morals are discussed in school. If what they wrote is truthful; they would rather clearly reject the five year old now for something that is completely outside of the child’s control. I think that is wrong.

 

[irishpatrick]

How comfortable do you this the mother and her friend will be with the Church’s teaching on sexuality? Do you think they might attempt to sue the school for hate speech? Do you think these logical ramifications are a possible reason for the specualtion concerning the mother (and her female friends’) intentions. As for me, I was born in the day…but NOT Yesterday.

I would certainly hope that any lawsuit would tossed immediately. A private school has every right to decide these matters.

 

[irishpatrick]

Actually, I have to disagree with the dioceses and the parish based upon what they wrote. They state that they don’t want to confuse the child when sexual morals are discussed in school. If what they wrote is truthful; they would rather clearly reject the five year old now for something that is completely outside of the child’s control. I think that is wrong.

I disagree. I think they would rather see the two women involved repent and turn from their sin. If they did that, then the child would be most welcome.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Whichever way it goes, it’s rather hostile to ban the child from school. Bottom line, Jesus is meant to welcome all - saints and sinners all. In fact, surely it is the sinner, or those brought up in sin, who need to hear the word of God the most? In error or not, presumably they were raising the child in an otherwise Catholic fashion?

“He who is without sin…” (etc.)

 

[gmarie21]

Whichever way it goes, it’s rather hostile to ban the child from school. Bottom line, Jesus is meant to welcome all - saints and sinners all. In fact, surely it is the sinner, or those brought up in sin, who need to hear the word of God the most? In error or not, presumably they were raising the child in an otherwise Catholic fashion?

“He who is without sin…” (etc.)

Don’t forget the “go and sin no more part” (I hate when people seem to leave this part out when talking about sin and “judging” sinners).

 

[rossum]

Don’t forget the “go and sin no more part” (I hate when people seem to leave this part out when talking about sin and “judging” sinners).

At five or so years old the child has probably not sinned even once and so cannot sin “more”. The age of consent for sin is about seven IIRC.

The school has the legal right to do what it did. Whether it was well advised to do so is a different question. The problems about the disconnect between morality taught at school and morality in the home are the same for a gay couple as for a remarried divorcee.

How much sex education is a five or six year old going to get anyway?

rossum

 

[irishpatrick]

Whichever way it goes, it’s rather hostile to ban the child from school. Bottom line, Jesus is meant to welcome all - saints and sinners all. In fact, surely it is the sinner, or those brought up in sin, who need to hear the word of God the most? In error or not, presumably they were raising the child in an otherwise Catholic fashion?

“He who is without sin…” (etc.)

The problem is that the child spends most their time at home in a gravely sinful environment and the child loves the “parents,” so of course the child will not think of their depraved living situation as being sinful–no matter what the Church teaches. The so-called parents have already stacked the deck against that child.

The Church cares about all souls, not just the child. It has the duty to try to communicate the spiritual danger the two women have placed themselves in and the spiritual danger in which they place the child.

Despite what some may think, salvation is not a game.

 

[irishpatrick]

At five or so years old the child has probably not sinned even once and so cannot sin “more”. The age of consent for sin is about seven IIRC.

The school has the legal right to do what it did. Whether it was well advised to do so is a different question. The problems about the disconnect between morality taught at school and morality in the home are the same for a gay couple as for a remarried divorcee.

How much sex education is a five or six year old going to get anyway?

rossum

How could it not be a wise thing to do? The Church has the duty to propogate the faith with love, yet also firmly when required. It is not a game.

 

[gmarie21]

At five or so years old the child has probably not sinned even once and so cannot sin “more”. The age of consent for sin is about seven IIRC.

The school has the legal right to do what it did. Whether it was well advised to do so is a different question. The problems about the disconnect between morality taught at school and morality in the home are the same for a gay couple as for a remarried divorcee.

How much sex education is a five or six year old going to get anyway?

rossum

And baptism is denied infants and children whose parents admit they will not raise the child in the faith, no matter the parental situation (parents could be validly married, but fallen away and not care about raising the child in the faith). Obviously, when that child is older s/he can start the conversion process if desired (and some have).

Parents ARE the primary educators of their children. The CCC teaches that, so in reality, this school is honoring the parents primary education goal and not setting up the child with conflict and undermining of the parental responsibility. You should read the letter I posted from Bishop Doran who believes Catholic schools need to be purged from those who do not desire to teach the faith at home.

 

[AnotherVoice]

I disagree. I think they would rather see the two women involved repent and turn from their sin. If they did that, then the child would be most welcome.

As I have previously stated I don’t know all of the facts here only what has been published but it is pretty clear that the child is the one being rejected. The guardians are gay. The parish is saying – we don’t want any children in our midst who have gay people as guardians. In fact only children from homes that are in compliance with church teachings should be sent here; others may get confused when we discuss moral teachings. (That is the wording used by the dioceses not mine.)

Establishing conditions which are outside of the child’s control seems to be artificial at best. If the parish wishes to make an example of these two gay women; go ahead but don’t use a little child as a tool in setting that example. Throw the two people out, if you wish, but not the child. If the bishops want to raise the moral standards for those in the church, go to it. But please start with some adult Catholics in Washington not with five year olds.

 

[katy]

Whichever way it goes, it’s rather hostile to ban the child from school. Bottom line, Jesus is meant to welcome all - saints and sinners all. In fact, surely it is the sinner, or those brought up in sin, who need to hear the word of God the most? In error or not, presumably they were raising the child in an otherwise Catholic fashion?

“He who is without sin…” (etc.)

I think you are presuming a lot. Why should we presume that at all?

 

[Elizabeth502]

The parish is saying – we don’t want any children in our midst who have gay people as guardians. In fact only children from homes that are in compliance with church teachings should be sent here; others may get confused when we discuss moral teachings. (That is the wording used by the dioceses not mine.)

Establishing conditions which are outside of the child’s control seems to be artificial at best. If the parish wishes to make an example of these two gay women; go ahead but don’t use a little child as a tool in setting that example. Throw the two people out, if you wish, but not the child. If the bishops want to raise the moral standards for those in the church, go to it. But please start with some adult Catholics in Washington not with five year olds.

The child is not a “tool.” The child is related integrally to others, as I explained earlier, as did several other posters. And those others who claim guardianship of the child also have a relationship with the school and its teachings. The child cannot be separately viewed from the adults in whose care it is. That is entirely the point. If you “do not know all the facts,” please at least read the other posts which explain that Catholic schools are qualitatively different from other categories of schools, in that these schools stand for traditional families, and are committed to recognizing traditional families, even when those units find themselves divorced, widowed, etc. The Catholic Church does not recognize self-appointed gay “parents” as legitimate family units.

It’s not a matter of “wanting” or not wanting. It’s a matter of being true to its moral premises as an institution, and not being two-faced about that. To recognize the gay “couple,” together with the child, as a “family unit” is contradictory to the very values represented by that Catholic school (as integral with the Catholic Church), and is contradictory to the daily practical operation of the school in its relationship with (heterosexual) families.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

It’s all about appearances you see. Pedophilia is bad, but as long as it’s covered up and doesn’t create public scandal, not too bad. Children of remarried divorcees, or Hindus, they’re allowed to attend because the unrepented sins of the parents (adultery and idolatry respectively) aren’t on public display. But a lesbian couple, that’s too obvious. Even if they’re celibate, and so not committing sin at all, it’s the appearance that matters, far more than anything else.

A Church can be a hotbed of sin, child molestation and cruelty. But such sins are private ones, only between the sinners and God, and not of any great consequence as long as they’re concealed. Should even the most minor sin be engaged in publicly, or even appear to be engaged in even if not, that’s far worse. Because it would no longer be a private matter, but one that would corrupt society. It must remain private, lest others be tempted.

And if some children have to suffer because of that, it’s unfortunate of course, but no big deal. We have to prevent the passage of anti-bullying legislation that would protect kids who are gay, or seem to be gay, even if they die as the result. It’s for a much greater good, to avoid the appearance of sanctioning homosexuality.

Some may mistake this for hypocrisy, but the Church has always been persecuted by the Ungodly.They take in this burden of private sin so others do not, thereby showing true charity.

Far better a multitude of actual sins in private than a single apparent sin in public, for the sake of society. We should all be grateful to them for bearing this burden. That’s the theory anyway.

I… am not, I’m afraid.